Civil Procedure Commons^™

Corporate And Institutional Accident Investigations As Work Product Pursuant To The Rules Of The Supreme Court Of Virginia, William Todd Benson

University of Richmond Law Review

If the magnitude of the mishap so warrants, many businesses immediately call their insurance adjuster or other accident investigator. In some of the larger businesses, accident investigation and insurance have become in-house operations. This quick reflex toward early fact investigation is prompted, in part, by a healthy respect for the potentiality of claims arising out of the day to day conduct of business affairs. When a suit against such company ultimately is ified and discovery sought, an issue often arises concerning whether early institutional investigations are "work product" for purposes of the federal or Virginia rules of civil procedure. This …

Curbing Litigation Abuses: Judicial Control Of Adversary Ethics—The Model Rules Of Professional Conduct And Proposed Amendments To The Rules Of Civil Procedure, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article addresses the effectiveness of recent developments and proposals related to abusive litigation, and discusses them in the context of recent opinions illustrating the power of the trial judge to control the excesses of the adversary system. It rejects the countersuit as a time-consuming and costly means of controlling litigation abuses, and concludes that “tinkering changes” in the rules of procedure cannot bring about true reform. It is urged here that the burden resulting from abuse of litigation can only be relieved by changes which foster stronger judicial control of adversarial ethics, and greater judicial involvement in the pretrial …

Discovery Of Retained Nontestifying Experts' Identities Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note proposes an approach to the problem of identification of rule 26(b)(4)(B) experts that differs from both of the approaches taken in the reported opinions. 9 Part I analyzes the language of rule 26(b) and rejects the majority approach. As a matter of statutory construction, rule 26(b )( 4)(B) governs the disclosure of the identity of nontestifying experts retained by a party in preparation for trial. Part II examines the underlying purposes of rules 26(b)(l) and 26(b)(4)(B) - to ensure adequate pretrial disclosure and to prevent unfairness in adversarial competition - and suggests that both interests may be accommodated. …

Conflict And Dissent In Class Actions: A Suggested Perspective, Bryant G. Garth

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Pleading Principles And Problems In Washington, Philip A. Trautman

Washington Law Review

It has now been a little over two decades since the present rules governing pleading became effective in Washington. It was on January 1, 1960 that the pertinent Washington Civil Rules, patterned after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, took effect. With some twenty years of experience to draw upon, it seems appropriate to review that experience with the hope of embellishing the stark provisions of the rules themselves, clarifying some of the problems that have arisen, and evaluating whether the objectives sought in the rules have been achieved.

Pleading Principles And Problems In Washington, Philip A. Trautman

Washington Law Review

It has now been a little over two decades since the present rules governing pleading became effective in Washington. It was on January 1, 1960 that the pertinent Washington Civil Rules, patterned after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, took effect. With some twenty years of experience to draw upon, it seems appropriate to review that experience with the hope of embellishing the stark provisions of the rules themselves, clarifying some of the problems that have arisen, and evaluating whether the objectives sought in the rules have been achieved.

Civil Procedure: Commentary, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Non-Jury Trial Of Civil Litigation: Justifying A Complexity Exception To The Seventh Amendment, Barrett E. Pope

University of Richmond Law Review

The seventh amendment to the United States Constitution states that "[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."' When Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the right to jury trial at common law remained undisturbed.

Court Examination Of The Discovery File On A Motion For Summary Judgment, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines the history and ambiguous language of rule 56 to determine whether courts have a duty to examine the discovery file before granting a summary judgment. Section I discusses courts' differing interpretations of the rule. Section II shows that the Supreme Court Advisory Committee which drafted the rule contemplated that courts would examine routinely filed discovery materials when considering a motion for summary judgment. Section III concludes, however, that the expansion of pre-trial discovery since the enactment of the federal rules renders such a trial court duty inconsistent with the drafters' intent that the rules "be construed to …

The Applicability Of Rule 23(E) To Precertification Proceedings: The Functional Approach Applied, Kevin Silverang

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Federal Practice And Procedure - Comment - Appealability And Finality In The Third Circuit - Is The United States Supreme Court More Appealing Than The Third Circuit, Gary A. Rome

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The Standing Doctrine: A Dialogue Between The Court And Congress, Daan Braveman

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Summary Jury Trial, Thomas D. Lambros, Thomas H. Shunk

Cleveland State Law Review

The American judicial system must necessarily rely on a steady flow of dispositions of cases by settlement lest it collapse because of a demand for trials beyond the ability of the courts to try cases. Settlements are achieved through a variety of procedures and techniques, yet many cases result in trials because of the uncertainty about prospective juror perceptions that pervades settlement discussions. Summary trial helps to eliminate this element of uncertainty and, at the same time, provides an additional basis for settlement of cases otherwise committed to trial. This is not to suggest that trial is to be avoided …

The Summary Jury Trial, Thomas D. Lambros, Thomas H. Shunk

Cleveland State Law Review

The American judicial system must necessarily rely on a steady flow of dispositions of cases by settlement lest it collapse because of a demand for trials beyond the ability of the courts to try cases. Settlements are achieved through a variety of procedures and techniques, yet many cases result in trials because of the uncertainty about prospective juror perceptions that pervades settlement discussions. Summary trial helps to eliminate this element of uncertainty and, at the same time, provides an additional basis for settlement of cases otherwise committed to trial. This is not to suggest that trial is to be avoided …

The 1979 Civil Procedure Rules, James W. Spears

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Proposed Amendment To Rule 26(B)(4)(B): The Expert Twice Retained, Andrew J. Miller

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article will focus on whether the hiring of the free agent as a non-trial expert, in order to conceal information from other parties to the litigation, is in keeping with the underlying goals and values of present discovery practice. Part I of this note discusses the discoverability of experts in general, then examines the various rationales underlying the so-called unfairness doctrine supporting the trial/non-trial expert distinction. Part II presents the case for divergent treatment of the free agent and the regularly retained expert. Subpart A of that section will explain the lack of judicial scrutiny in this area, while …

Federal Civil Procedure - Fed R. Civ. P. 54(B) - A Proposed Two-Part Analysis For The Exercise Of A Trial Judge's Discretionary Certification Of A Claim As Final Under Rule 54(B) When A Counterclaim Remains Pending, James A. Matthews Iii

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Federal Practice And Procedure, Various Editors

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Manageability Of Class Actions Under S. 3475: Congress Confronts The Policy Choices Revealed In Rule 23(B)(3) Litigation, James R. Lyons Jr.

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Rule 14(A) And Ancillary Jurisdiction: Plaintiff's Claim Against Non-Diverse Third-Party Defendant

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Class Action And Title Vii- An Overview

University of Richmond Law Review

The class action device and Title VII enforcement go hand in hand. In a proper case, a suit alleging a violation of Title VII is by nature a class action since it attempts to remedy the effects of employment discrimination on the basis of a class characteristic. As in any other case, however, a class action is permitted only if the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met. Before certifying an action as a class action' the court must determine that (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of its members is impracticable …

Discovery Of Expert Information Under The Federal Rules

University of Richmond Law Review

With the adoption of extensive pretrial discovery mechanisms, preparation for trial in the federal system underwent a dramatic alteration. Instead of relying upon pleadings to perform the tasks of notice-giving, issue formulation, and fact-revelation, the various discovery devices available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow the parties "to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial."' Discovery was created to promote the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposal of litigation. To this end, discovery serves to (1) facilitate the formulation and narrowing of issues; (2) protect against unfair surprise during trial; (3) detect any superflous …

Reflections On The Senate Investigation Of Army Surveillance, Lawrence M. Baskir

Indiana Law Journal

SYMPOSIUM:

The Military After Vietnam: The Search for Legal Controls

Eisen V. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 479 F.2d 1005 (2d Cir. 1973), [Vacated, 417 U.S. 156 (1974)], Florida State University Law Review

Florida State University Law Review

Class Actions-FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE- RULE 23(b)(3) CLASS ACTION REQUIRES PERSONAL NOTICE TO ALL IDENTIFIABLE MEMBERS OF THE CLASS.

Federal Civil Procedure- Work Product Doctrine

University of Richmond Law Review

The work product doctrine protects from pretrial discovery witness statements and other documents gathered by an adversary's counsel in the course of preparation for possible litigation. The purpose of the work product doctrine is to preserve the privacy and independence of lawyers by denying unwarranted intrusions into their private files and mental processes. Prior to the 1970 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts applied two distinct tests when considering whether to allow pretrial discovery of documents and witness statements. One test required the party seeking discovery to show good cause why discovery should be allowed. The alternative …

Federal Jursidiction And Procedure, Various Editors

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Shareholder Derivative Actions: A Modest Proposal To Revise Federal Rule 23.1, Robert A. Kessler

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The purpose of this article is to suggest the addition of two words, "if necessary"-or better yet, the phrase "if necessary under the law of the forum state"-to clause (1) of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1. This Rule sets forth the requirements for a shareholder's derivative action in the federal courts.

Stockholder's Derivative Actions By Holders Of Convertible Debentures, Robert A. Malstrom

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article focuses on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1. That rule provides a particularly convenient vehicle for discussing the protective limitations which prevent abuse of the derivative action. Analogous protective limitations exist in the statutory or case law of most jurisdictions, therefore the discussion here applies equally to actions brought in the courts of many states. Moreover, the economic and public policy arguments presented are applicable to actions in both federal and state courts.

Recent Developments, Various Editors

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Recent Developments, Various Editors

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.